Re: Re: SAD GIT (was - Re: RGB to SVideo vs KAT5)

["Scott Ewing" <geekster@xxxxxxx>]

OT = off topic, full stop

Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Whiten <jon@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: SAD GIT (was - Re: RGB to SVideo vs KAT5)


> To save confusion when writing the subject line I propose the
following
> convention to be employed in identifying On- and Off- Topic messages:-
>
> OT = Off-topic
> OT = On-topic
>
> This will prevent any embarrassment caused by people failing to
identify
the
> subject correctly.  Shall we put it to the vote?  ;oj
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
> http://www.whiten.co.uk/
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BUTLER, Tony, FM [mailto:tony.butler@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 18 March 2002 16:55
> > To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: SAD GIT (was - Re: RGB to SVideo vs
KAT5)
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > I suppose I could have added OT as a prefix, but I just
can't
> > > tell what is
> > > OT anymore anyway :-)
> >
> > Well when there is a dearth of T's as there is today, surely all
OT
stuff
> > becomes T due to the lack of T content? :)
> >
> <SNIP>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>